D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

[Raven Crowking]

Disliking the system is one thing. Not wanting to be in the vicinity of the physical books (harmless inanimate objects) is rather silly.

There is no such thing as a rational preference, IMHO. Rationality just helps us find a way to get what we prefer.

Besides, how can not wanting to be near the books be any less rational than wanting to own every D&D book ever printed? Six of one, half dozen of the other, IMHO.


RC

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Has anyone played 4e without a battlemat?

Besides for extremely complex combat, like with 10 opponents we do all our fighting without a battlemat.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Mallus,
If you consider an 18 Ac at level 1 low then I would have to agree with you, but I don't. I also don't agree that damage output should be the primary concern of any character. If you want to build a brute/tank/warmage type then fine but to me having damage output being the primary concern for all character types is more like playing a computer game and not an RPG. A fighter w/ an 18 str is neither original or unique and rather predictable. I take more note when a character is not built out to be totally more optimized, but that is my style and you have every right to disagree with it.

18 AC at level 1 is...average for a fighter. But after first level it'll quickly become too low to survive well. Also, when your DM throws normal challenges against you, the fighter with a 20 strength vs the one with the 20 dex will be a significant difference in the difficulty of the encounter.

The entire D&D system(pretty much ALL editions) has revolved around damage since the beginning. Simply hitting an enemy doesn't matter, killing it does. An enemy with 200 hitpoints who only has 100 left is just as dangerous as one with full hitpoints. So, the goal in any party of adventurers is to reduce it to 0 hitpoints as quickly as possible. The more you contribute to this goal the more valuable you are to a party.

I strongly believe 4E was designed that 90% of the player character design was done taking the mini/maxing into account for thier balance guide to the point that if you don't your odds of hitting actually go down as you increase in level. 4E is balanced so that someone can start a character w/ a 20 in a stat, put every increase they can into that stat with whatever allowable magic items at their disposal. If I tried building a fighter with a 15 str and only 5 of the stat improvements I'm behind 20% on my chance to hit and much more on my damage output prior to any magic items. This does affect how you want to design your character and it's career.

Yep, this is pretty much true. It assumes that you'll take close to the max you can for your primary stat. Since nearly every person I've ever played with has done this...and 3.5e DIDN'T take this into account, so it caused problems...I think it's a good thing.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Mallus,
I think you are missing my point. I never said it wasn't possible to tweak the class, just the opposite, nor do I think it is difficult.

This is EXACTLY why I 4E is doing it for me. I needed ONE house rule (count 'em) to open up a HUGE array of concepts: "Pick any Skills."

Wizard-Ranger? Play an Eladrin Wizard with Stealth, Perception and Nature.

Street Thug? Play a Fighter with Streetwise, Intimidate and Thievery.

Swashbuckler? Play a Rogue with Acrobatics and Diplomacy.

etc. etc.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I'm not 100% sure that's entirely rational.

I'm 100% sure it's not.

 

[Darrin Drader]

A perfectly valid critique.

You should see by now that you're in hostile territory. They might as well hang a sign on the front page that those who don't worship at the altar of 4th edition need not enter.

 

[Filcher]

You should see by now that you're in hostile territory. They might as well hang a sign on the front page that those who don't worship at the altar of 4th edition need not enter.

Mr. Drader, I respect your catalog of work, but I don't see how that contributed to the conversation. Which, in turn, leads to other questions.

The question posted by the OP is if 4E is doing it for you. I assume it it not. I hope you'll elaborate why and share some of your professional insights.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I could take a 3.5 fighter make dex & con my main stats (guys is to be rather durable & agile) takes weapon finesse to make use of his dex, combat reflexes and combat expertise

(A) ... and you'd suck.
(B) and in 4E all you'd have to do to accomplish the same withing (without the suck) is play a Rogue and call him a Fighter. Rogues are "Martial Power Source", after all.

In regards to optimization there is a big difference with not as optimized (having a 14 or 15 in your main class stat) as you can be vs suboptimal (having a 10 in your suggestion).

I guess 3.x isn't doing it for you either, eh? Or AD&D for that matter. Because that's, like, exactly the same. Show me an AD&D fighter without exceptional strength (or Gauntlets of Ogre Power) and I'll show you a guy who should have seriously considered being a Cleric or simply not adventuring in the first place.

I strongly believe 4E was designed that 90% of the player character design was done taking the mini/maxing into account

You say that like designing a product based on how it's actually used by most of its customers is a bad thing.

for thier balance guide to the point that if you don't your odds of hitting actually go down as you increase in level. 4E is balanced so that someone can start a character w/ a 20 in a stat, put every increase they can into that stat with whatever allowable magic items at their disposal.

This is different from AD&D and 3.x how? If you want to go back to OD&D though, where stats only provided an XP bonus, go ahead. Just adjust monster attacks & defenses downwards by a like amount and you should be mathematically neutral and thematically improved (from your point of view).

If I tried building a fighter with a 15 str and only 5 of the stat improvements I'm behind 20% on my chance to hit and much more on my damage output prior to any magic items. This does affect how you want to design your character and it's career.

So ... you want a game where stats don't matter?

Honestly, I think you're really stretching here and not making good arguments. You should consider that 4E would "do it" just fine for you if you'd let it.

 

[Toras]

Not doing it for me. Part of this is because what they did with the system and the setting blows a few of my projects out of the water. (Modules,etc.)

The fact that the books are bloody unreadable as anything other than reference books are two points in the negative column. I haven't seen a decent bit of flavor in any of it. No interesting stories or details in the racial or class descriptions, the powers don't have any neat effects (no special effects or interesting hooks).

Really, if they were going to cut things down this far why not go the whole way.
1) Have the four selections be Defender, Striker, Leader, and Controller.
2) Pick your power source, and get the unique power that the combination offers (along with the class title)
3) There you could pick or design powers on a standard progression, with power generation rules included for you to create your own. I'd almost be tempted to have them scale by level, though that's just me.
4) I'd assign skills (and offer a profession as a background which determines your non-combat related skills) based on your intelligence, but leave plenty.
5) Stunt rules for both in and out of combat, for that Cinematic goodness.

DMG should have the Do it yourself stuff for the rest.
-Race building rules
-Class Building rules
-Magic Item Building rules
-Trapmaking and Terrain prep for PC and NPC.

If its going to be bland, at least have it be helpful. And btw, exception based design is going to suck, especially when things start to get bloated. It will get irritating.

I

 

[Herremann the Wise]

...exception based design is going to suck, especially when things start to get bloated. It will get irritating.

I agree with some of what you said but not all...

However, I think you raise an interesting point here in regards to exceptions based design. Based on the Mike Mearls interview (Theory from the Closet Podcast), the aim of this was to produce a similar scenario as you find in Magic the Gathering (also a fine example of exceptions-based design).

The aim is to have a game where if you know a few basic things (such as "defender" or "Flying" in MtG or "Burst" in D&D4E), then the game can run itself without referring to the rules or books (pretty funny actually if you consider the reference book style of 4E and whether such an approach was necessary). In MtG, all the information was on the cards. in D&D4E, all the information a player needs to know is on their character sheet. The need to refer to the PHB is taken away (or at least they have tried to design so that the PHB as Mike Mearls says is something that you look at in between gaming sessions, or if you are about to level up).

To my mind, this approach makes 4E feel more like a game and a little less like D&D. However, I'm sure for some, the absence of rules referral means that they can focus on the what's being role-played, rather than how it's being role-played. For them, 4E is a big step in their direction - and thus why more than any other edition transition, we have seen a far greater degree of acceptance/non-acceptance than previous transitions. I think I'm only one of a few that I've seen on these boards who would genuinely be in the middle regarding the transition to 4E. Most here seem to be quite polarized.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise